Navigate:

Pro-gun Sen. Joe Manchin: Time to act

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — who has an “A” rating from the NRA and is a lifetime member of the pro-gun rights group — said Monday that it was time to “move beyond rhetoric” on gun control.

“I just came with my family from deer hunting,” Manchin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.”

“I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” he said. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”

In the past, the NRA has opposed both the assault weapons ban and a ban on extended magazines. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Sunday she would reintroduce the federal ban on assault weapons, which lapsed in 2004. Legislation banning extended magazines was introduced in 2011 after the mass shooting that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, but failed to go anywhere.

Manchin also said more than gun control might be needed to prevent future mass shootings.

“This is bigger than just about the guns,” he said. “It’s about how we treat people with mental illness, how we intervene, how we give them the care they need, how we protect our schools.”

All 31 senators with an “A” rating from the NRA declined to appear on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” to discuss gun control, according to host David Gregory.

Manchin appears to be the most prominent gun rights supporter to discuss the issue on the national stage since Friday’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Twenty-seven people, including 20 children, died at the school.

“Never before have we seen our babies slaughtered,” he added. “It’s never happened in America that I can recall, ever seeing this type of carnage. Anybody, anybody that lives in America, anybody that’s a proud gun owner, anyone that’s a proud member of the NRA, they’re also proud parents, they’re proud grandparents. They understand this has changed where we go from here.”

Readers' Comments (181)

i grew up in a family of hunters. we had a dozen guns in our home. not one could fill 20 children with 5-11 bullets in a matter of minutes. why? because we didn't need a gun like that to hunt or to protect ourselves from an intruder. guns like that are for WAR. civilians don't need them. civilians shouldn't have them. especially not to play with like toys. or out of some delusion that they will use them against the US military someday if they think America has turned against them. people like that are mentally unstable and give good gun owners a bad name.

We can start with how we apply the 2nd Amendment to the 21st Century. The world has changed a lot since 1776. Militias are no longer needed (replaced by a professional standing military and the National Guard) and our nations defense does not rely on small arms. Tyranny is not prevented by owing a handgun. At any rate, we have always had personal gun ownership and laws placing limits on the right.

We are already neck deep in legal firearms of all types. Bans have limited effectiveness, nor has the rise of concealed permits transformed society (despite the research of John Lott). Anti-gun Chicago has high gun-related murders and so does pro-gun Miami.

Most Americans believe that law abiding, responsible citizens can own firearms. The difficulty is determining what, where, and how.

it is not the number of shells in a clip that is the problem. It is the rise of immorality and the loss of the American family that has led to what is happening in America. If the person doing the killing is willing to die then a bomb around the waist is no different than a rifle clip of 30 rounds. The death of innocents is the same. The ability to learn how to create bombs is right on the internet and the regulation of the bomb making ingredients is impossible. The real danger to all of us is the rise of an immoral party that supports and encourages lawlessness and the destruction of American values that have made this country great all in the name of "fairness" and "policitical correctness." Look at yourselves America and that is the problem when we tolerate political ideology that harms us all just as surely as bullets from a gun.

For the NRA to remain relevant in gun discuss going forward, they must take the lead in proposing common sense changes gun debate. If they don't and they put up resistance to change, they will lose credibility and their ranks will dwindle and die off in short period of time.

This incident will not fade away anytime soon to play for time NRA............ so step up NOW!

Remember how Erin Burnett (CNN), Sens McCain, Graham, Fox News and general news media blasted Susan Rice for info she provided on Benghazi, after being briefed by CIA. It was the initial info they had. Well Burnett and those mentioned above also provided a lot of inaccurate info right after the shooting in Conn. They should all apologize and where is the condemnation as was showered on Susan Rice.

I do not believe the NRA should be a part of developing gun policy for America. We need unbiased experts such as law enforcement and military personnel, mental health experts, psychologists, researchers, mayors of various cities, criminal justice experts, gun company owners/representatives, and others who can bring experience and data and research to the table for discussion and policy development. It would be preferable for politicians to stay out of the debate. Unfortunately, the NRA used to be a more normal organization and I was a previous member. But now, their goal seems to be cultivating irrational fears that the big, bad government is coming to take your guns so amass as many weapons as possible in order to defend yourself from your own government. I find that indicative of an organization that has lost its way. Many NRA members support gun safety focused legislation. There are ways to allow gun enthusiasts who own guns for legitimate purposes to continue to own guns while at the same time limiting ways for guns to get into the hands of illegitimate users. I have heard of new technology that can identify if the person pulling the trigger is the owner of the weapon. I'm just saying there are many options for policy development. No organization should be driving gun policy for this country. Oh, and I know the old saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Yes, that's true, but the gun is the tool used to effect death or injury. There is no reason that guns cannot be properly registered. This would help Law Enforcement so much and would save many of their lives too.

The NRA might be a friend of the Senators and other politicians, but they are no friend of the American people. They have fought against laws that would share information about illegal guns with law enforcement, fought to keep those on the suspected terrorist watch list from buying guns, and have threatened the ATF by getting their House cronies to pull their purse strings back when they actually dare to investigate the flow of illegal guns.

It is time to stand up tot he gun lobby and pass some common sense laws. Background checks for all guns, more records in the NICS system, ban military style weapons and high capacity magazines, no more online ammo sales, and limit how many guns you can buy a month.

Funny thing that Joe never said ONE thing about mental health,enforcement of EXISTING law and the fact that the Obama administration "quietly" let over a billion dollars in school security funds lapse because of "budget concerns." What's the price of TWENTY SEVEN LIVES, Joe,as compared to the cost of armed security to prevent things like this.Connecticut ALREADY has strict gun laws and the school was a "gun free"zone with locked doors.Lanza was also prevented from buying a gun at a dealer by A LAW. So what did he do ?? He stole a legally purchased and registered gun and SHOT his way into the school. ONE guard with a gun and it would have stopped at that.

What a surprise. Another "pro-gun rights" Democrat who is not really in favor of the 2nd Amendment. Psst, Joe, the 2nd amendment is primarily about defending against a tyrannical government, not hunting. To really understand what is happening with these shootings, we need to look at our ongoing devaluation of human life that is primarily the responsibility of left-wing pro-abortion extremists. The GOP should immediately introduce legislation to further restrict abortion and attach abortion amendments to any piece of "gun-control" legislation. We need to have this conversation so we can stop hatred and violence now.

The First Amendment gave us the right to free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the freedom to petition the government for grievances. The Second Amendment was not about giving Americans the right to own hunting rifles. It was intended to secure the rights given us in the First Amendment. The Founders understood that government was not benevolent but a force that could not be trusted to restrain itself. It 1789 the weapon of government was the musket. The Founders wanted the people to be as well armed should they ever have to resist a government out of control. Fast forward to today, obviously we aren't going to be as well armed as today's individual soldier, but we can and should be as well armed as the civilian agents of government, the police. Do not think an oppressive government can't happen in America. Germans in 1933 thought it couldn't happen to them until a charismatic guy named Hitler came on the scene. Anyone over the age of sixty knows that many of our individual freedoms have been eroded since we were children in the 1950s. Today we have a press that hides the unconstitutional actions of a charismatic but thuggish Barack Hussein Obama. We need weapons capable of resisting government now more than ever. Think Obama is harmless? Watch the faces of Germans listening to Hitler at the 1936 Nuremberg rally, then watch the faces of the "faithful" drones of Obama at his 2008 event in Denver. Remember when Obama said in Denver in July 2008 that we needed a "civilian security force" as well armed as the Army? We need more guns, not less. We don't need "gun control", we need "medication" control. The last three major shootings were committed by mentally ill under doctor care. Time was when we institutionalized the mentally ill and we did not have shootings. Do not put your faith in government.

the 2nd amendment is primarily about defending against a tyrannical government, not hunting.

True and a valid expectation for the 19th Century.

Problem is small arms will no longer deter goverment in the era of tanks, jet fighters, and modern body armor. Bottom line, access to a glock or a M16 clone will not protect you. Civil wars are won when the professional military takes a side (or changes sides), not by a lightly armed populace.

The primary dangers to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were high explosives (IEDs and RPGs), not AKs.

So our interpretation of the Second Amendment should change. The question is, how?

I have to assume he hasn't paid any attention to how many babies have been slaughter in and out side the womb with the weapon called abortion. ( over 50 million babies and counting) listening and reading it seems people believe only guns kill children.